Developmental dysplasia of the hip: addressing evidence gaps with a multicentre prospective international study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a lack of high quality evidence available to guide clinical practice in the treatment and management of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). Evidence has been limited by persistent confusion on diagnostic and classification terminology, variability in surgeon decision making and a reliance on single centre, retrospective studies with small patient numbers. To address gaps in knowledge regarding screening, diagnosis and management of DDH, the International Hip Dysplasia Institute began a multicentre, international prospective study on infants with hips dislocated at rest. This review discusses the current state of screening, diagnostic and management practices in DDH and addresses important unanswered questions that will be critical in identifying best practices and optimising patient outcomes. There is insufficient evidence to support universal ultrasound screening; instead, selective screening should be performed by 6-8 weeks of age on infants with risk factors of breech presentation, family history, or history of clinical hip instability. Follow-up of infants with risk factors and normal initial screening should be considered to at least 6 months of age. Brace treatment is a sensible first-line treatment for management of dislocated hips at rest in infants < 6 months of age. Early operative reduction may be considered as there is insufficient evidence to support a protective role for the ossific nucleus in the development of avascular necrosis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it